We present the initial findings from a study of adaptive resilience of lifelines organisations providing essential infrastructure services, in Christchurch, New Zealand following the earthquakes of 2010-2011. Qualitative empirical data was collected from 200 individuals in 11 organisations. Analysis using a grounded theory method identified four major factors that aid organisational response, recovery and renewal following major disruptive events. Our data suggest that quality of top and middle-level leadership, quality of external linkages, level of internal collaboration, ability to learn from experience, and staff well-being and engagement influence adaptive resilience. Our data also suggest that adaptive resilience is a process or capacity, not an outcome and that it is contextual. Post-disaster capacity/resources and post-disaster environment influence the nature of adaptive resilience.
Recent experiences from the Darfield and Canterbury, New Zealand earthquakes have shown that the soft soil condition of saturated liquefiable sand has a profound effect on seismic response of buildings, bridges and other lifeline infrastructure. For detailed evaluation of seismic response three dimensional integrated analysis comprising structure, foundation and soil is required; such an integrated analysis is referred to as Soil Foundation Structure Interaction (SFSI) in literatures. SFSI is a three-dimensional problem because of three primary reasons: first, foundation systems are three-dimensional in form and geometry; second, ground motions are three-dimensional, producing complex multiaxial stresses in soils, foundations and structure; and third, soils in particular are sensitive to complex stress because of heterogeneity of soils leading to a highly anisotropic constitutive behaviour. In literatures the majority of seismic response analyses are limited to plane strain configuration because of lack of adequate constitutive models both for soils and structures, and computational limitation. Such two-dimensional analyses do not represent a complete view of the problem for the three reasons noted above. In this context, the present research aims to develop a three-dimensional mathematical formulation of an existing plane-strain elasto-plastic constitutive model of sand developed by Cubrinovski and Ishihara (1998b). This model has been specially formulated to simulate liquefaction behaviour of sand under ground motion induced earthquake loading, and has been well-validated and widely implemented in verifcation of shake table and centrifuge tests, as well as conventional ground response analysis and evaluation of case histories. The approach adopted herein is based entirely on the mathematical theory of plasticity and utilises some unique features of the bounding surface plasticity formalised by Dafalias (1986). The principal constitutive parameters, equations, assumptions and empiricism of the existing plane-strain model are adopted in their exact form in the three-dimensional version. Therefore, the original two-dimensional model can be considered as a true subset of the three-dimensional form; the original model can be retrieved when the tensorial quantities of the three dimensional version are reduced to that of the plane-strain configuration. Anisotropic Drucker-Prager type failure surface has been adopted for the three-dimensional version to accommodate triaxial stress path. Accordingly, a new mixed hardening rule based on Mroz’s approach of homogeneous surfaces (Mroz, 1967) has been introduced for the virgin loading surface. The three-dimensional version is validated against experimental data for cyclic torsional and triaxial stress paths.
Though generally considered “natural” disasters, cyclones and earthquakes are increasingly being associated with human activities, incubated through urban settlement patterns and the long-term redistribution of natural resources. As society is becoming more urbanized, the risk of human exposure to disasters is also rising. Architecture often reflects the state of society’s health: architectural damage is the first visible sign of emergency, and reconstruction is the final response in the process of recovery. An empirical assessment of architectural projects in post-disaster situations can lead to a deeper understanding of urban societies as they try to rebuild. This thesis offers an alternative perspective on urban disasters by looking at the actions and attitudes of disaster professionals through the lens of architecture, situated in recent events: the 2010 Christchurch earthquake, the 2010 Haiti earthquake, and the 2005 Hurricane Katrina. An empirical, multi-hazard, cross-sectional case study methodology was used, employing grounded theory method to build theory, and a critical constructivist strategy to inform the analysis. By taking an interdisciplinary approach to understanding disasters, this thesis positions architecture as a conduit between two divergent approaches to disaster research: the hazards approach, which studies the disaster cycles from a scientific perspective; and the sociological approach, which studies the socially constructed vulnerabilities that result from disasters, and the elements of social change that accompany such events. Few studies to date have attempted to integrate the multi-disciplinary perspectives that can advance our understanding of societal problems in urban disasters. To bridge this gap, this thesis develops what will be referred to as the “Rittelian framework”—based on the work of UC Berkeley’s architecture professor Horst Rittel (1930-1990). The Rittelian framework uses the language of design to transcend the multiple fields of human endeavor to address the “design problems” in disaster research. The processes by which societal problems are addressed following an urban disaster involve input by professionals from multiple fields—including economics, sociology, medicine, and engineering—but the contribution from architecture has been minimal to date. The main impetus for my doctoral thesis has been the assertion that most of the decisions related to reconstruction are made in the early emergency recovery stages where architects are not involved, but architects’ early contribution is vital to the long-term reconstruction of cities. This precipitated in the critical question: “How does the Rittelian framework contribute to the critical design decisions in modern urban disasters?” Comparative research was undertaken in three case studies of recent disasters in New Orleans (2005), Haiti (2010) and Christchurch (2010), by interviewing 51 individuals who were selected on the basis of employing the Rittelian framework in their humanitarian practice. Contextualizing natural disaster research within the robust methodological framework of architecture and the analytical processes of sociology is the basis for evaluating the research proposition that architectural problem solving is of value in addressing the ‘Wicked Problems’ of disasters. This thesis has found that (1) the nuances of the way disaster agents interpret the notion of “building back better” can influence the extent to which architectural professionals contribute in urban disaster recovery, (2) architectural design can be used to facilitate but also impede critical design decisions, and (3) framing disaster research in terms of design decisions can lead to innovation where least expected. This empirical research demonstrates how the Rittelian framework can inform a wider discussion about post-disaster human settlements, and improve our resilience through disaster research.
